7. Data portability
“As users, our identity, photos, videos
and other forms of personal data
should be discoverable by, and
shared between our chosen (and
trusted) tools or vendors.”
8. Principles
● We should have control over the profiles, relationships,
content and media we create and maintain, regardless
of what platform they are hosted on
● We should use open formats, APIs, protocols and
policies for the data they control
● We want to protect their rights and privacy
● We should be recommending existing standards
wherever possible rather than inventing new ones
9. Bill of rights for social users
● We publicly assert that all users of the social web are
entitled to certain fundamental rights, specifically:
● Ownership of their own personal information, including:
– their own profile data
– the list of people they are connected to
– the activity stream of content they create;
● Control of whether and how such personal information is
shared with others; and
● Freedom to grant persistent access to their personal
information to trusted external sites.
23. Ray Ozzie on Live Mesh
● Just imagine the possibilities enabled by centralized
configuration and personalization and remote control of
all your devices from just about anywhere. Just imagine
the convenience of unified data management, the
transparent synchronization of files, folders, documents,
and media. The bi-directional synchronization of
arbitrary feeds of all kinds across your devices and the
Web, a kind of universal file synch.
● http://seekingalpha.com/article/67370-microsoft-mesh-cloud-computing-
for-the-masses
27. Trap in the cloud
● Richard Stallman, founder of the Free
Software Foundation and creator of the
computer operating system GNU, said that
cloud computing was simply a trap aimed at
forcing more people to buy into locked,
proprietary systems that would cost them
more and more over time.
● http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richa
rd.stallman
47. Facebook Eula
“By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you
automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you
have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable,
perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide
license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly
perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole
or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose,
commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with
the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works
of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to
grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.”
49. Old Google Chrome Eula
11. Content licence from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already
hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through
the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content,
you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-
free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify,
translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and
distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or
through the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of
enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services
and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the
Additional Terms of those Services.
50. New Google Chrome Eula
11. Content license from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in
Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the
Services.
51. Open source loophole
It's worth noting that the EULA is largely unenforceable because
the source code of Chrome is distributed under an open
license. Users could simply download the source code, compile
it themselves, and use it without having to agree to Google's
EULA. The terms of the BSD license under which the source
code is distributed are highly permissive and impose virtually
no conditions or requirements on end users.
64. Facebook overruled
● Facebook users were right to be concerned about the
original distinction between deactivation and deletion.
While storing the data was legal - at least in the U.S.
● In Europe, it is possible that Facebook may have
violated the law by deactivating, rather than deleting
accounts. The UK Data Protection stipulates that
companies should not retain data for longer than is
necessary. And in January of this year, it was reported
that Facebook was reportedly facing an investigation by
the UK Information Commissioner's Office based on
complaints from users who say their profiles were not
properly deleted.
●
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20080229.html
65. Facebook overruled
● In sum, users who think that simply removing their
Facebook profiles will protect their privacy should think
again. Until Facebook changes other rules, serious
privacy risks will persist on the site.
66. Time to get web savvy
● dataportability.com
● autonomo.us
● futureoftheinternet.org
● cyber.law.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Main_Page
● opensocialweb.org
● diso-project.org
● sioc-project.org
● microformats.org/wiki/social-network-portability
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gadgettakesapicture/2240511988/
67. Thank you, any questions?
http://www.cubicgarden.com
Ian Forrester - ian.forrester@bbc.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dogseat/436402348/ Presentation : CC BY-NC-SA
